The economics of moving oil by rail are already proven viable

On Monday (June 3rd) I wrote a post entitled, "Could this in fact be the real reason, for the BC Liberal government, to be declaring they will not agree to the Northern Gateway Pipeline proceeding"  



Journalist John Twigg

The post led to a number of people making comment about it on Facebook -- and to me personally by email.  One of the responses I received came from John Twigg, who has a long history in BC's political arena, as a commentator, and a journalist.

I asked if I could share his response and he agreed.  This is what He had to say:

Thank you for sending me a copy of your opinion piece below on the Northern Gateway pipeline situation, which was about the first thing I opened and read when I downloaded my email tonight because of the teaser reference to a railway outcome.

I could quibble in a few places but generally it's a thoughtful piece and something that was a pleasure to see coming from the perspective of an Interior conservative citizen. But there's always a but and it has to do with this line:

"I for one have to think that moving the oil through a pipeline would be far safer than it would be by rail car"

Did you do any research on that? Did you read any of my blog posts in the last year or so about the great potential for using rail cars to move Alberta bitumen - but to Prince Rupert rather than Terrace? Did you read any of the handful of other op-ed and news pieces about this concept? Do you recall seeing any tweets with links to industry and MSM articles on oil shipments by rail, such as happening now from southern Saskatchewan to Texas?

In other words, the economics of moving oil by rail are already proven viable and in the Alberta bitumen case they have the added huge advantage of infrastructure being mostly already in place! Namely that the CN Rail mainline to Prince Rupert is already at world-class standards and its running rights are in place and not subject to Indian Land Claims or Environmental Reviews - the only items needed are loading and unloading terminals and spaces for those are already readily available.

Safety? Perhaps you were influenced by the latest news of a Canadian Pacific Railway freight train plunging through a bridge near Sudbury, but did you hear any reports of dire effects? No, because rail car spills tend to not have catastrophic events like say the Kalamazoo spill, though of course accidents can still happen with rail cars carrying flammable materials.
But again one of the advantages of rail-car movements of Alberta bitumen is that they would need less diluent or perhaps even no diluent whereas the Northern Gateway would need so much diluent that they are (or were?) planning to build a small twin pipeline to carry diluent only from Kitimat back to Fort McMurray because it is so costly and scarce that it has to be extracted and re-used.

Now imagine if that diluent line was to have a bad break along with the bitumen line and they were to catch fire, which could happen in a variety of scenarios, and imagine it was near a major river or salmon-spawning-stream crossing - you and we would be talking about something far worse than Kalamazoo!  But a rail car or two carrying only bitumen going off the rails might not even break open let alone flow into a cold river....

I've recently learned that there's also a whole bunch of modern technology to prevent derailments, notably sensors that detect "hot boxes" when trains pass by, i.e. wheels that for some reason are over-heating.

Anyway, I think you should reconsider your assumptions about the northern oil pipeline, and furthermore your BC Conservative Party probably needs to review its blanket pro-pipeline policy too because it's obvious to most B.C.ers in almost all parties that the Enbridge pipeline proposal has numerous flaws (the worst feature IMO would be the use of Douglas Channel for large oil tanker ships because the navigation is hazardous and the environment pristine, but I also worry about the diluent pipeline crossings being too hazardous too, i.e. not worth the risks).

I can understand why you and many other people would assume that pipelines are better than railcars because they are safer and more efficient, because for one reason that is also the industry propaganda line, but actually with bitumen the railway would actually be a faster mover than the pipeline and maybe even more energy-efficient than would be a pipeline too, as well as safer. And if you consider the huge costs and risks and delays of building a new pipeline you can see that the railway solution begins to make a lot of sense. (It may be more labour-intensive too, which in these days of high unemployment would be a good thing.) 

Jobs and Politics ... thoughts from John Cummins and Christy Clark

I like day #1 so far, in so much as development of the North has always been a great wealth and job creator for the province.

WAC Bennett and Flying Phil started this province on the road to growth and development with roads, highways, and a northern railway.   That said, I am still having an issue and problem with all the fanfare -- that is just razzle dazzle 'look at me' staff that Christy loves and that we can do without.

Also, as John Cummins (BC Conservative Party leader) indicated in a statement this morning following Christy’s job creation announcement:
"The $15 million is not being advanced in the interest of jobs, it is to sweeten the pot for Canpotex to cut a deal with the natives regarding the export terminal. Why else would Premier Clark contribute millions of taxpayers' dollars to a project that has not yet been approved?".